Bremmer demonstrates his framework by closely examining twelve countries at various points on the curve--North Korea, Cuba, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Israel, India and China--and analyzing the pressures and motivations that influence these countries' leaders given their relative position and, consequently, how realistic policymakers should interpret the challenges posed by their regimes.

While the author's intent is to provide an analytical tool rather than a grand architecture, his model does dispel some of the clichéd aspersions often cast at realists: Cohen, in his December op-ed, for example, characterized realists as those who believe that "domestic politics, including massacre or mere repression, is no one else's business." Bremmer points out that, thanks to the forces of globalization, states on the right side of the J curve "must be more concerned than ever by the internal developments within left-side states. Social unrest in China, the Saudi education system, a security vacuum in Afghanistan, ethnic tensions in Nigeria's oil-rich Niger Delta, and market volatility in Argentina each have a more immediate impact on geopolitics and economics than ever before."

Hence, while the most powerful agents for change in any society must emerge from within, states on the right side of the curve have political, economic and security interests--to say nothing of moral stakes--in assisting the movement of states on the left side of the curve through the dip of instability. "Assistance", of course, ought not to be construed as a euphemism for "regime change." Bremmer argues that globalization, with its complex flows of goods, services, technologies and information, undermines the ability of authoritarian regimes to isolate their peoples and provides citizens with the opportunity to build private wealth, a solid first crack in the edifice of totalitarianism.

On the other hand, Bremmer acknowledges the downside of globalization: It can also be tremendously destabilizing, especially when an ill-prepared country is pushed into the unstable depths of the curve. Should this happen, citizens may demand a return to stability, even at the expense of openness. Or, worse yet, the state may collapse altogether. Consequently, Bremmer sounds a cautionary note about the active promotion of democratization as a U.S. foreign policy, whether it is carried out by hard military power, as was the case in Iraq, or via the "soft power" of political pressure and public diplomacy:

""[T]he strategy is dangerous precisely because the Bush administration hasn't fully articulated how states that aren't ready for the transition can withstand the buffeting they'll face in the depths of the curve. Foreign policymaking is not an abstraction, and a one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.""

The constructive solution is for right-side states to pursue a strategy of raising the entire curve for left-side states: more stable countries are better able to withstand the stress of the movement towards greater openness. The example Bremmer invokes is that of the generally wise and largely bipartisan U.S. support for integrating China into the global economy:

""[T]he best way to undermine China's police state remains a strategy that helps build a Chinese middle class and binds China's economic future and political stability to rules-based international institutions. Helping the Chinese Communist Party create prosperity within China fortifies its citizens to demand change from their government and increases the probability that China can survive its transition with as little instability as possible . . . Hundreds of millions of Chinese people, thanks to the economic reforms that have lifted them toward a middle class, now have a greater stake in protecting China's future, even as they dismantle China's past. Raising the curve also means that a new government will have the resources to maintain a new political order as China goes about the difficult business of opening and restructuring its society. In other words, economic reform prepares the ground for stable political reform.""

This approach also opens the way for a more balanced--but still realist--appraisal of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Clearly, as Bremmer notes, "winning the global war on terror is imperative for the stability of the right-side states that are under attack." Corollary to this is the fact that dismantling terrorist cells and strengthening the counter-terrorism capacity of weak states both raises these countries' curves and edges them toward the right-side of the curve. The administration's favoring of conditioned foreign aid through initiatives like the Millennium Challenge Account, which ties development assistance to objective criteria for economic and political reform, is an excellent example of implementing the constructive solution. What is arguably the most pressing foreign policy challenge facing the United States--the battle in Iraq against foreign terrorists and local insurgents--can likewise be assessed using the model offered by Bremmer's J Curve: "Winning this war could help establish a right-side-of-the-curve state in the middle of a left-side-of-the-J-curve neighborhood. But if the U.S.-led coalition should fail, demand for security among ordinary Iraqis will trump demand for an open society, and left-side-of-the-J-curve rule might well return to Iraq."

Even at this juncture in the Bush presidency, it might not be too late for it to redeem its earlier promise. The realist critique of Charles Peña raises questions that highlight the stakes in U.S. commitments overseas, while the realist analysis of Ian Bremmer offers the tools both for crafting policy solutions and assessing their possible outcomes. As American foreign policy navigates through the shoals of the coming years, it might well be that much-maligned realism alone offers the clarity of vision necessary to safely steer the ship of state.

Essay Types: Book Review